HITLERY HAS 'GUN CONTROL' ISSUES!

Yesterday
I saw a headline on Breitbart.com. It wasn’t much of a headline as
these things go, a minor story slipped in between two more important
subjects, but it started my mind ambling down a path it has followed
many times before, yet for some reason, I have never written about.

The
Breitbart headline reported that Hillary Clinton was screeching that
the problem of terrorism (she actually said the word, apparently) will
never be solved until America has more gun control. Now, I freely and
unashamedly confess that I didn’t read the rest of the article; I have
heard everything this brain-damaged, bloody-fingered collectivist
harridan has to say on the subject of victim disarmament what seems like
at least a hundred million times since I first regretfully became aware
of her miserable existence back in the 1990s. To the best of my
ability, I cannot remember ever hearing her (or her disgusting specimen
of a husband or their ill-spawned daughter) utter anything that even
remotely resembled the truth.

It makes me wonder whether pathological lying is genetic.

As
I’m sure you know, the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,
shall not be infringed.” It’s a sentence that every individual reading
this essay has seen many, many times before. Give or take a comma or
two, it is far from ambiguous; its meaning, where rights are concerned
(of the individual, as it turns out), is perfectly clear, no matter what
Marxists like Hillary Clinton—out of the closet and grimly determined
to see their prey (that’s us) rendered helpless—claim to the contrary.
Their entire cowardly purpose, theirs and their pet celebrities and
their fawning sycophants in academia, is to get around our rights and to do things to us that they can’t do as long as we have our guns.

And
yet, there is another aspect of the Second Amendment (which is unique
among the ten articles of the Bill of Rights in many ways) to
contemplate. The great, glaring failure of the Bill of Rights and its
otherwise distinguished authors is that it doesn’t include a severe and
stringent penalty clause, a punishment prescribed for government
officials and others who try to violate the rights that it protects.
However, the Second Amendment, by implication, contains its own penalty
clause. It defines itself, and the liberty it enshrines, as “necessary
to the security of a free State”. It doesn’t take much interpretation to
infer that anyone who strives to weaken or abolish that right
altogether, is endangering the security of the free state in which we
live.

A more direct way to say it is that they are committing treason.

And the customary punishment for treason is death—by hanging.

The
dictionary (one of them, anyway) defines “treason” as “the offense of
acting to overthrow one’s government or to harm or kill its sovereign.”
Or as “a violation of allegiance to one’s sovereign or to one’s state”.
Or, more generally, as “the betrayal of a trust or confidence; breach of
faith; treachery.” I believe these definitions are overly statist in
character and wrongly-focused in a nation where the paramount concern is
freedom of the individual.

From
previous scholarly discussions of the issue of treason, I’ve been led
to believe that a necessary element of the charge must be the act of
giving “aid or comfort to the enemy.” Since unlimited private firearms
ownership and permitless carry have become the last (and, all too often,
under the despicable and tyrannical Obama Administration, the first)
line of defense against jihadists and other terrorist criminals, it
should be more than obvious to anyone but a lawyer or a judge, that any
attempt to outlaw guns or make them more difficult to own—to infringe that right in any way—gives considerable aid and comfort to those who wish for a free hand to do us harm.

I
ask you, what would happen to a congressman or a senator who introduced
a bill to abolish our Army or Air Force or Navy or Marine Corps or turn
them over to Chinese communist control and command? Unless he wound up
being frog-marched ignominiously out of the Capitol by federal marshals
and hurled into a cell, this country is in deadly danger, especially if a
creature like Hillary Clinton finds herself in a position to provide a
third term for the anti-American, anti-capitalist, anti-individualist,
anti-liberty dementia of Barack Obama.

And
what of any politician who would strip Americans of their best (and
often only) defense against the street crime of any kind, be it
religious, political, or random freelance? Should his treasonous acts go
unpunished, and thus encouraged? Or would it be better for traitors
like Charles Schumer, Harry Reid, Dianne Feinstein, Diana DeGette and
Carolyn McCarthy find customary justice at the end of a rope, entirely
under due process of law?

“A
republic, if you can keep it.” is the way that Dr. Benjamin Franklin
answered somebody who wanted to know what kind of new government we had.
In this instance, “keeping” means “defending”, or else we’ll all be
living under Sharia Law before our grandchildren grow up.

There are many reasons Hillary must go to prison, but her advocacy of gun control is the most important.